Culture War

Liberals Are Amazed That Campus Free Speech Outrage Gets So Much Attention. Here's Why It Matters.

"You'd think liberal arts undergrads had the nuclear codes," writes Chris Hayes.

|

Berkeley
Public Domain

MSNBC's Chris Hayes is frequently amazed; today he is amazed that free speech controversies on college campuses receive so much attention from conservative media.

The reason for this, he explains, is that the right wing holds tremendous power—control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and state and local government—but its "emotional fuel is grievance and persecution," and so conservatives must draw attention to the one place where they can play the victim: Berkeley.

"You'd think liberal arts undergrads had the nuclear codes," Hayes tweeted Tuesday night.

Is the right's obsession with the campus culture wars partly explained by the conservative media's continued interest in feeding an outrage-hungry base? Of course.

At the same time, it's wrong to say that this fixation on the current state of higher education in America is unwarranted. Liberal arts undergrads may not have the nuclear codes, but they are spending lots of money and years of their lives in pursuit of the most prestigious credentials in the world—the college diploma—and the power it buys. The graduates of Berkeley, and Middlebury, and Michigan, and Mizzou, and a hundred other institutions enduring similar moments of illiberalism, will go on to become business leaders and political leaders and activists and inventors and doctors and lawyers and artists and writers. They don't have their fingers on a button that could destroy the world all at once, but their ideas do matter, and will shape society in the long run.

The question is this: do we want the society of the future—the one built by Berkeley graduates—to reflect a sustained commitment to free speech and other liberal, Enlightenment norms, or not? If the answer is yes, then what happens at Berkeley should matter, for liberals like Chris Hayes as well as for conservatives.

The saddest thing about what's happening at Berkeley is that a lot of people currently invested in the project of higher education have come to believe the answer is no. Take Ulrich Baer, a vice provost and professor of comparative literature at New York University, who recently penned an article, "What 'Snowflakes' Get Right About Free Speech," for The New York Times. They are right, Baer argues, to regard offensive speech as an invalidation of their own humanity, and as such, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse:

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer's visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

This view is wrong and dangerous. Free speech isn't a public good: it's an individual right. Expressing views that "invalidate the humanity of some people" does precisely that: it invalidates the humanity of some people. That may be wrong and legitimately hurtful for those people, but it does not restrict their speech. Baer, in fact, is turning the definition of free speech inside out. He is claiming that free speech is merely the right to not feel invalidated—a right that implies censorship is justified if done in order to safeguard the feelings of others. This isn't a "right," and it certainly isn't free speech.

Baer continues, "in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing… Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone's humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned."

But the purpose of the First Amendment, and norms of free speech more generally, is to prevent the authorities from re-drawing the parameters relating to speech, since they cannot be trusted to do so fairly. Indeed, Baer's own remarks demonstrate how the people who wish to re-draw speech parameters will always be tempted to do so in a manner that disadvantages their enemies. For instance, Baer writes that "free speech protections… should not mean that someone's [] right to participate in political speech and political agents, can be freely attacked." And yet, in his article, he is attempting to craft a definition of free speech that obligates attacks on certain people's right to participate in political speech: Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, etc. This is the hypocrisy of those who would damage the concept of free speech in order to protect what they describe as the "humanity" of offended people. Invariably, the humanity of the disfavored people—like Coulter—doesn't seem to matter to them.

Nor does it seem to matter that there are students who want to hear from Coulter and Murray. A private organization that makes no guarantees about free speech to its members should have the right to discriminate against conservative students and conservative speakers. But Berkeley is a public institution, and if it refuses to defend speech and opportunity on an equal basis for all the members of its community, it is unworthy of the taxpayer's generous support.

As for "snowflakes," there's no question that the term is overused—often by people who are at least as easily offended as the students they're mocking. But some critics of these students spend a great deal of time writing about what's happening on campus because they actually take snowflakes seriously. The ideas of liberal arts undergrads matter. They wield tremendous power on campus, and they will continue to wield tremendous power after they graduate.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

203 responses to “Liberals Are Amazed That Campus Free Speech Outrage Gets So Much Attention. Here's Why It Matters.

  1. All my commenting will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this blog, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this blogosphere. But let us begin!

    1. I wonder, who are you arguing with?

      1. the voices in its head. It’s a lefty; expected.

        1. Sometimes campus authorities must “redraw the speech parameters,” to make sure that inappropriate contrarian manifestations about certain delicate affairs don’t get out of hand. Surely no one here would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

            1. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

              Read more here,.,.,.,.,.,>>>> http://www.foxnews20.com

            2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.careerstoday100.com

    2. They will RUE THE DAY they even made this web blog site comments place, biatches!

  2. Damn, Robby, don’t quote your own Twitter account!

    1. It’s becoming his signature move.

      1. I thought his signature move was showing up, eating all the fruit sushi, and then leaving with a flip of his glorious coif?

        1. Fruit sushi exists?

          1. OMG. It does exist. Fuck everyone. They ruined sushi. Just fuck you all. I’m fucking out, the wrld can go fuck itself.

            1. Just wait till you find out what hipsters are doing to pho.

              1. SUSHI IS NOT A SUGARY DESSERT. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT. YOU CAN FUCK UP YOGURT AND MAKE IT SWEET. YOU CAN FUCK UP KEFIR. BUT YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FUCK UP SUSHI. I WON’T ALLOW IT.

                What the fuck is wrong with Americans? Everything has to be sweet and sugary? We can’t have salty , sour, buttery flavored foods unless there’s a fucking layer of icing on top? You have to make fucking fruit sushi so that retards who think raw fish is too gross to eat can feel sophisticated?
                Fuck you people.

                1. If you think everything is sweet and sugary in America, you should check out Asia.

                2. Hate to break it to you, but in the interests of keeping you sophisticated.

                  Sushi is not raw fish.

                  Sushi is a rice dish.

                  In the home of sushi good sushi is all about the rice. Everything else is a complement/condiment for the rice.

                  If you want raw fish what you want is sashimi.

                  I’d also add that, in Japan, fruit sushi would be seen as more of an insult to good fruit than to good sushi. And covering it in any sort of sweet (or especially dairy) sauce would be the mark of a true barbarian.

            2. OMG. It does exist. Fuck everyone. They ruined sushi. Just fuck you all. I’m fucking out, the wrld can go fuck itself.

              Hazel, you need to calm down. A floppy version of thin crust pizza exists, people on this very forum refuse to acknowledge that it’s a pizza or a calzone, and nobody around here freaks out.

              1. Dammit a pita or a calzone. Stupid phone!

      2. Maybe he wanted us to admire the 222 likes. Maybe he’s hoping our thumbs slip and we hit the follow, like, or retweet button. Maybe he’s illustrating a point and just doesn’t care about what H&R commenters have to say about him essentially quoting himself.

        We love you, Robby, never change!

  3. and this is the crux of why these progs should go fuck themselves. We understand them yet they don’t understand the other side at all, nor do they really care to.

    How often have you heard “I just don’t understand what the big deal is”, “or I just don’t understand why XYZ” from these types? That means they don’t fucking know what they are talking about, and they don’t care to. Instead they just project what they want and call it a day.

    If someone asked a libertarian or a conservative to stand up and argue the other side (like a great communications professor I had did to us), we could and you probably couldn’t tell we were playing devil’s advocate. If you asked them, they would fail the turning test and just invoke their strawmen. That’s why idiot shows like the daily show and colbert were so popular —- they were just liberal caricatures of the right and not anyway honest

    1. Chris Hayes once said, “Gee: it’s not like Bill O’Reilly has the nuclear codes!”

      I swear I heard that once. Somewhere.

      1. Chris Hayes is a shallow short-term thinker.

    2. It’s not about understanding the other side or even pretending to understand it. It’s about painting the other side as illegitimate. Period. The whole point is to discount any voices as their own as crazy, evil, racist, not worthy of a hearing, etc.

      1. In fairness I consider progressives crazy, evil and sometimes racist. I have no issues with painting them as illegitimate because they are illegitimate and should not be given even a shred of the benefit of the doubt. The difference is I don’t go from

        A. You are illegitimate to
        B. You should get a beat down for daring to open your mouth.

        Those are not insignificant differences.

  4. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

    What? No views can invalidate the humanity of a person. What is that even supposed to mean?

    1. Erasing bodies something something

        1. Please stop

    2. It’s the only way they can equate guns and offensive speech as equal methods of violence. And just as they want to blame guns instead of shooters, they want to ban ideas instead of thinkers.

    3. What is that even supposed to mean?

      “Don’t hurt muh FEEWINGZ!!1!!!!!!!”

    4. “We’re not violating free speech! They’re the ones violating free speech! Why, the nerve! They have no respect for anything, do they?”

      I’m pretty sure that’s what it’s supposed to mean.

    5. If feeling invalidated stops you from speaking, you’re a fucking pussy.

      1. This is true!

        People should learn to be grown ups in college. Doesn’t look like many colleges are doing a very good job. A bunch of emotional midgets. (or is that “little people”?)

        1. Drama queens. How many of them are actually unable to cope with an Ann Coulter speech, and how many of them are just faking it?

          1. The way they are acting now I really don’t know and that is sad for them.

    6. That’s actually a revealing mask-slip. It necessarily implies that a person gains their humanity from being in a recognized group. How illiberal.

    7. invalidating the humanity of some people means not kow-towing sufficiently to their feelz, or saying something they may not like. It only takes mind-reading to know what not to say, after all.

    8. ” No views can invalidate the humanity of a person.”

      That the left believes words can invalidate your humanity both forms the basis of all thought crime, and also lets you know exactly what they intend to do to anyone who does not toe the party line.

    9. That claim has never made sense to me either. Does someone cease being human at the words of another? If so then what do they become?

  5. amazed that free speech controversies on college campuses receive so much attention

    It’s the first f—–g amendment. Liberals wanting to gut it is a pretty big deal.

    1. It’s rather disturbing that it’s not more disturbing to more people that so many people are disturbed by the notion of free speech being an essential, individual right.

      1. But it’s only restricting the speech of conservatives. Who cares about them?

      2. It’s disturbing that some major newspapers play propagandist for these censors

        1. I do not think they are playing in any sense of the word.

          This is deadly serious stuff.

    2. It’s the first f—–g amendment.

      It’s the first amendment and the BOR doesn’t start off with an explicit ‘In no particular order…’ clause.

      If you’re expressly guilty before even opening your mouth, the whole facing your accusers and even ideas like “Isn’t this an issue the States should decide?” become exceedingly moot.

      There is, however, a manner of bearing arms that isn’t exactly described by free speech.

  6. The true value of all these idiots desiring to ban offensive speech is how it lays bare their complete lack of awareness of everyone outside their snowflake circles. Otherwise they’d have to admit that *their* speech is offensive to half the country, and the resultant cognitive time loop would isolate them from everybody else.

  7. Intellectual honesty implies that those favoring censorship come right out and say so, stop equivocating about what is and what is not “free speech.”

    1. Absolutely! They’re attempting to succeed in the same manner they have with 2nd amendment restrictions. It’s amazing how easily they can make an absolute negotiable.

  8. The reason why this is a much larger problem than many people think is because, for the most part, the places where this is most severe tend to be the elite, prestigious schools where our politicians, lawyers, and judges tend to come from. Most of the worst “snowflakes” are hardcore professional activists who, among other things, naturally tend to be super active in political campaigns and lobbying efforts. They also control pop culture with their outrage campaigns.

    There are 5 Harvard Law grads currently on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Harvard students have essentially eliminated due process, declaring it outdated and inherently corrupted by white men. That is horrifying.

    1. I think Robby said that:

      The graduates of Berkeley, and Middlebury, and Michigan, and Mizzou, and a hundred other institutions enduring similar moments of illiberalism, will go on to become business leaders and political leaders and activists and inventors and doctors and lawyers and artists and writers.

      1. He did. I just think that is like 95% of the problem and should have been the main focus.

  9. Liberals are amazed!

    Fox & Friends will be right back, but first, this message from MyPillow?, the pillow Mike Lindell invented because he used to have trouble sleeping with a normal pillow!

  10. Is the right’s obsession with the campus culture wars partly explained by the conservative media’s continued interest in feeding an outrage-hungry base? Of course.

    Is this a confession about Reason’s own coverage?

    are we outrage-hungry? I’m sort of outrage-stuffed, frankly. I don’t even have room for dessert.

    Expressing views that “invalidate the humanity of some people” does precisely that: it invalidates the humanity of some people.

    And there it is. box ticked.

    because “invalidating humanity” is a thing! No, really. We *have* to grant that, don’t we? Because its an important point.

    1. I’m sort of outrage-stuffed, frankly.

      Thus your dearth of commentary.

    2. I missed that. I thought maybe Robby made it through an article without providing something for people to complain about.

      But views can’t invalidate the humanity of anything, so it’s all just mubbage.

      1. But views can’t invalidate the humanity of anything,

        No, they can’t.

        Saying they can is absurd, and simply pretends the idiotic victim-rhetoric of the censorious left has any basis in reality. The term “invalidating humanity” doesn’t even mean anything. Its just slapping vague terminology together in an attempt to mask what they’re really saying, which is, “I disagree with you, so shut up

        And my comment wasn’t a complaint. It ‘entertainment’ at this point. Like “Where’s Waldo”, only its “Where Did Robby Go Full-Retard”

        1. I get what they are trying to say, sort of. Minority groups don’t feel comfortable speaking in a context where they are socially marginalized. Making speech that makes people feel marginalized makes them uncomfortable and therefore silences them. But it’s ultimately such a convoluted chain of thought processes that leads to this point where marginalized people are simply passive victims, incapable of intellectual self-defense, so that other people must protect them from being marginalized by preventing the speech of these somehow omnipotent thought gods who are somehow capable of making people marginalized merely by uttering words.
          I mean what a bunch of fucking pussies minority groups have to be to be silenced just because some speaker shows up and says something that makes them feel less than totally accepted. Waaa, you made me feel invalidated, I’m going to go cry in my pillow. You control my life because you say mean things!
          Why would you give other people that kind of power over you?
          And anyway, it’s all a fucking lie, because there’s no evidence that any marginalized groups are actually being silenced in reality. If they were actually being silenced there would be NO protests, and NO threats of violence.

          1. Why would you give other people that kind of power over you?

            I think you have both reversed the issue, and identified the answer in that statement.

            iow = They are SEIZING power over others by pretending to be victims.

            by claiming victimhood, they gain leverage in the institutions which promise “protections”, and use those institutions to smash their enemies.

            they can’t do this in real life because courts would simply look at their crazy claims, look at the first amendment, and say, “What the fuck are you talking about?”

            But colleges are different, because they can be leveraged using the same bullshit rhetoric that they teach in their victim-mongering Identity-Politics departments. They wouldn’t *dare* tell these leftist students that they’re wrong. How could they? THEY TAUGHT THEM THIS SHIT.

            1. It’s all an elaborate dance of the will to power.
              Make a big show of your own powerlessness in order to demand that other people exert power in order to give you more of it.
              Look at me! I’m so easily emotionally influenced that I can be browbeaten into silence by the presence of an offensive speaker on campus! You must silence him in order to correct this horrifying power imbalance!

              Which really creates an incentive to make yourself look as weak and powerless as possible so as to justify ever greater demands for power to be be “corrected” in your favor.

            2. The government has been funding these oppression factories with extremely loose loan programs.

              I hate how our governments seem to usurp the constitution by funding private entities through heavily subsidized loans, contracting or grants. Then those same entities are allowed to restrict individual freedoms claiming they’re ‘private.’ How private are you when 35-85% of your income is via some government shell game?

          2. ” Minority groups don’t feel comfortable speaking in a context where they are socially marginalized.”

            Then maybe they should stop thinking of themselves in terms of their ‘minority’ status. Self isolation being the most effective form of isolation. Instead they should assert themselves for having the same essential status as everyone else – that of a human being.

            If someone else then chooses to reject them out of their perceived ‘minority status’ then fuck that bigot. But that’s all on him.

            Fuck. Even Oliver Stone got this one right: ‘Free your mind and your ass will follow.’

        2. No, I’m not saying you were complaining. Just that complaining about Robby is a popular pastime around here. I also have been playing the game of looking out for the Roby signature that he seems to have to include in every post, which lots of people do make a habit of complaining about.

      2. A fetus being pulled apart might disagree.

    3. Yeah really. First of all, how can anything I say objectively invalidate your humanity? Doesn’t it require you to participate in that process by feeling invalidated? If you choose not to be invalidated, then the speaker has done you no harm, hasn’t he? The speaker does not have metaphysical powers over the universe to actually make you non-human. Even taken figuratively in a social context, invalidating someone’s humanity requires the active intellectual participation of lots of other people besides the speaker, and those people are certainly free intellectual agents, not automatons who automatically believe whatever the speaker tells them. You’re perfectly free to say other things which validate your humanity and fill their brains with validating rather than invalidating ideas.

      1. Talking with a mixed group and I made a joke about men (me being one and all) and all the guys laughed. We didn’t feel invalidated. We can take a joke and even make fun of ourselves because we are grown ups.

  11. Someone again remind me why the left was ever supposed to be collectively good on civil liberties. Free speech is fundamental to all other rights. It should be sacred to anyone associated with journalism (like I would suppose Hayes is).

    1. Someone again remind me why the left was ever supposed to be collectively good on civil liberties.

      Because they wear it on their sleeves! They keep INSISTING they love civil liberties? What: you don’t believe them?

      Also = they’re the party of science too. Serious.

    2. Because only a few idiots in Berkeley are doing this. They are not “the left”.

      Remember, Obama famously backed the free speech of anti-Muslim commentors at YouTube and other venues.

      Thus is the genius of wingnut “news” like Fox and PigBoy. They take a few idiots on college campuses and claim all liberals are like them.

      1. Pay your bet, Blue Mikey.

          1. That comment was so savage, it could host Mythbusters.

      2. It’s Hayes I’m talking about. He should know better, and I suspect he does know exactly what he’s doing. But – and this is how it works – I fully support his continuing contributions to the discussion on free speech.

        It’s good that we know where everyone stands.

        1. It’s good that we know where everyone stands.

          As Aldo Raine might say, “I like my fascists easy to spot.”

        2. Well, liberals are generally better on civil liberties (thus the ACLU) while the right is better on gun rights. I thought not many sane people disputed this.

          I don’t watch Chris Hayes but if he is for campus censorship then he is an idiot.

          1. liberals are generally better on civil liberties

            Its just that no one on the left is actually “liberal” anymore.

          2. So you see, the left is better on civil liberties because liberals are better on civil liberties. And if that’s not good enough for you, Fist, then I don’t know what else could be.

            1. Conservatives don’t even respect the Establishment Clause. They suck on the rest of the BoR.

              But I know – TEAM RED!!! GO GO GO!! TEAM RED!

              I get it.

              1. Hey man, you don’t need to convince me that you’re a tard. I keep up on current events.

          3. Well, fit me for a straitjacket because I dispute the hell out of it. The people good on civil liberties are the ones defending them for their ideological opponents, and yes guns. Who wants to win the discussion and who wants to end the discussion? Right now I don’t see it as being the left any more than the right.

            Universities don’t appear to be defending speech. Journalists don’t seem to be defending speech. The Democrat leadership doesn’t seem to be defending speech. It should be a point of pride to do so.

          4. No one in government is very good on civil liberties. But at this point, I’d say that Republicans are narrowly better than Democrats on speech, overall. Conservative republicans still have their thing for porn and obscenity, but most Democrats seem quite happy to eliminate the freedom of speech and of the press in the political arena and distressingly many of them buy the notion that “hate speech” should not be protected speech.

            1. Conservatives are better at supporting a police state tho.

      3. Obama famously backed the free speech of anti-Muslim commentors at YouTube

        “Famously”?

        you have a link for that?

        1. you have a link for that?

          BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!!1111!!!!!!!!

            1. At the same time if we are serious about those ideals, we also have to acknowledge that the White House asked Google to “review” the 14-minute trailer for the anti-Mohammed video to see if it violated YouTube’s terms of use. (It didn’t.) And if we are serious about those ideals, we also have to acknowledge that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, placed a call to the anti-Islam pastor Terry Jones to see if Jones would rescind support for the movie. (He wouldn’t.) Let’s be clear ? there’s a world of difference between those requests and government demands for censorship. But they’re still a far cry from combating hateful speech with more speech.

              So – in the course of trying to suppress the video through covert means, showing some awareness that what they were doing was legally dicey, Obama made a very public declaration that despite all appearances he really does support free speech and doesn’t think the video should be suppressed.

              I’m going to call your point somewhat overstated.

              1. Now, in front of the United Nations, President Obama insisted that the only answer to offensive speech is “more speech.”

                Spot on. Admit it. You can be fair if you want to.

                1. Hey McFly!

                  Why is that “Now” the first word in that quote from the article that you yourself linked to in your defense of your assertion that Obama is “famously pro-free-speech?”

                  Is the author drawing some sort of contrast with what he had been talking about in the previous sentences?

                  Are you seriously arguing that we take politicians for what they say rather than what they do?

                  1. Was Obama being political? Trying to appease the angry horde of Muslims while defending free speech?

                    Of course he was. That is why he was good at being POTUS.

                    1. Was Obama being political? Trying to suppress inconvenient speech while asserting he was doing just the opposite?

                      Of course he was!

            2. Obama Defends Free Speech After Asking YouTube to ‘Review’ Anti-Islam Movie

              Holy shit, you’re pretending that his “allowing Innocence of Muslims” to remain on Youtube is some great ‘defense of free speech’?

              (in fact what he asked them to do was to find some non-speech-related reason to pull the thing, while maintaining the rhetorical high ground)

              the White House quietly asked YouTube to “review” whether an anti-Islam film allegedly fueling the chaos violated any terms of use. Now, in front of the United Nations, President Obama insisted that the only answer to offensive speech is “more speech.”

              Meanwhile, they threw the guy who made the video into a dark hole and Clinton bragged about how they’d punish the bastard who made the moozies angry.

              This is pretty much like Robby claiming that Obama was a “genuine proponent of free speech on campus“…. *because he said some nice things in a speech once*…. Never mind his own DoE’s Office of Civil Rights demanding that universities impose Orwellian police-controls over students, and generally creating the worst atmosphere for civil-liberties on college campuses since the 1950s.

              iow, “Praise what they pay lip-service to…. Ignore what they do”.

              Par for course for you, i suppose.

              1. Now, in front of the United Nations, President Obama insisted that the only answer to offensive speech is “more speech.”

                And Obama is 100% correct.

                You conservatives will try to contort anything to demonize a correct position.

                1. e.g. “Praise what they pay-lip service to, Ignore what they do.”

                  Yes, we already understood you were a screaming hypocrite who denies reality

                  Obama said nice thing in front of audience = ergo, “he supports free speech”!
                  (never mind his wiretapping the AP, throwing journalists in prison, his FEC trying to regulate the internet, his DoJ opposition to Citizen’s United, his DoJ’s surveillance of people’s emails, and on and on and on)

                  I think Bush once said, “he truly wants the best for all Iraqis”. You should really stop complaining about the Iraq war = like Obama, Bush had good intentions.

                  Because words matter more than deeds, according to you.

                  1. Bullshit. Net neutrality INSURES free speech on the internet! No journalist was thrown in prison, etc

                    Quit reading wingnut.com.

                    1. INSURES

                      “ensures”, dipshit, and no it doesn’t. You don’t need federal regulators to police an internet that is an open marketplace. And Ok, risen didn’t actually do any time…but it was only because of public pressure.

                      You’re still just pretending that as long as Obama ‘says nice things’, he’s good on speech issues. Forget what he does.

                      Fuck your mendacious nonsense. Pay your bets, idiot.

                    2. Bullshit. Net neutrality INSURES free speech on the internet! No journalist was thrown in prison, etc

                      Free speech doesn’t require regulations. It only requires a lack thereof.

                    3. Palin’s Buttplug|4.25.17 @ 4:43PM|#
                      “Bullshit. Net neutrality INSURES free speech on the internet!”

                      Turd actually posted this. That piece of shit did; I just copied and pasted it.
                      There is no reason for me to comment further to anyone of average intelligence.

        2. Yeah, like when the jailed the director of that crappy anti-muslim video they tried to blame the Benghazi fiasco on? doh!

          1. Yeah, like when the jailed the director of that crappy anti-muslim video they tried to blame the Benghazi fiasco on? doh!

            Goobers be as dumb as liberals! doh!

            Youssef, who legally changed his name from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula while facing the charges, was on supervised release last year following his imprisonment in June 2010. He was convicted on four felony counts, including bank fraud and identity theft, and was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. He was released, according to federal records, in June 201
            http://www.washingtontimes.com…..ns-prison/

            Video maker blamed for Benghazi remains jailed
            But term has nothing to do with sparking Muslims to demonstrate
            http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/vid…..ns-jailed/

            (sigh)

            1. Oh, you poor, sad, man.

              Your cites point out that the ‘charges’ against Nakoula only came up AFTER they’d grabbed him and thrown him in jail.

              1. Your almost as crazy as Sevo!. And just as full of shit.

                He was convicted on four felony counts, including bank fraud and identity theft, and was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison

                Video maker blamed for Benghazi remains jailed
                But term has nothing to do with sparking Muslims to demonstrate

                You lose again.

            2. Michael Hihn|4.26.17 @ 8:45AM|#
              “Goobers be as dumb as liberals! doh!”

              But Mike, you got ’em all beat
              (laughing)

              1. I link to proof. Sevo closes his eyes.
                As always.

                1. Michael Hihn|4.26.17 @ 1:58PM|#
                  “I link to proof.”

                  You link to irrelevancies and claim bullshit.
                  (laughing louder!)

                  1. Berkeley student is TRIGGERED!

      4. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula begs to differ. He is out of jail now so he has that going for him.

  12. My biggest concern is that these fascists will be running the government eventually (you cannot be this undisciplined and unhinged and work in the private sector).

  13. As for “snowflakes,” there’s no question that the term is overused?often by people who are at least as easily offended as the students they’re mocking.

    They should embrace the term. Individually, snowflakes are harmless. But when allowed to pile on, structures can collapse and progress can slow to a halt. The power!

    The offense taken isn’t the reason they’re known as snowflakes. Anyone can be offended. It’s the reaction. It’s the inability to cope, and the attempts to use coercive tactics to make certain no one else can be exposed to what they personally find unacceptable. (Watch Gillespie and McDaniel’s “End of Play” video.)

    1. Well, it’s really all a pretense of the inability to cope.
      If they were actually unable to cope they would be hiding in their bedrooms crying in their pillows, not out in the streets smashing stuff up.

      The thing is that the notion that people need to be protected from bad feelings really creates this incentive to ramp up the drama. OMG, Coulter is giving a speech? I’m fuckin’ gonna slit my wrists. The PTSD flashbacks this will provoke is overwhelming.

      We should stop calling them snowflakes and start calling them drama queens.

      1. Crybully. Social Grievance Zealot. Emotionally and intellectually immature. Coddled, privileged, entitled elite. Drama queen isn’t enough of a descriptor.

    2. Don’t forget snowflakes are all WHITE and therefore RACIST! (Actually some are yellow.)

  14. The reason for this, he explains, is that the right-wing holds tremendous power?control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and state and local government?but its “emotional fuel is grievance and persecution,”…

    Wow… Project much?

    1. Actually, that is pretty much all true.

      Look at Appalachia – lily white all GOP and the highest rate of Government bennies in the country – and perpetually angry.

      1. Maybe it would help if you paid your bet.

        1. Kentucky or West Virginia?

          1. All bets. You don’t get to pay back just one states’ worth and claim honor is satisfied.

            1. You’re from Kentucky, admit it. Your anger indicates eastern KY.

              1. If I were a betting man, I’d bet you’ve got some anal fixation.

                1. That is one of shreek’s less inexplicable fixations, yes.

      2. Thus is the genius of wingnut “news” like Fox and PigBoy. They take a few idiots on college campuses and claim all liberals are like them.

        Appalachian hillbillies, however, are the very essence of conservatism.

        1. That’s what I’ve read in basically every mainstream media outlet outside of Fox News.

  15. FWIW, I think free/hate speech is my duty as a US citizen. I hate Islam and Christianity the most – in that order.

    1. You also hate paying bets.

      1. Almost as much as posting something that isn’t a lie.

  16. For some reason I think these people on the left would be more concerned about campus speech policing if they were the ones being limited.

  17. It’s not wrong to be concerned about free speech violations on college campuses, but the right is positively obsessed almost to the exclusion of any other issue with the occasional overzealousness of 18 year-olds. It’s kind of pathetic, and all too obvious in its cynicism.

    1. They can’t really complain about the government when Team Red is in charge.

      SO COLLEGE KIDZ!

  18. emotional fuel is grievance and persecution

    It’s almost like projection is the primary shtick of self-described “progressives”.

    1. Name a single political idea you have that doesn’t incorporate blaming progressives or some faction of them for some problem. Hey, forget political ideas. You blame your fucking stubbed toe on proggies don’t you?

      1. Tony|4.25.17 @ 3:41PM|#
        “Name a single political idea you have that doesn’t incorporate blaming progressives or some faction of them for some problem.”

        Name one where that’s not true.

        1. Shake it off snowflake.

          1. Asking you to give (any) evidence of what you say is not snowflake behavior.

            1. Liberals look out for the interests of minorities and the downtrodden. Conservatards look out after the truly oppressed: white, male, Christian heterosexuals. On top of it, that grievance is like their entire shtick.

              1. So your “evidence” is more baseless claims that you call “evidence”.

                Kind of what I figured.

                -An-Cap

              2. “Conservatards”. That doesn’t seem like the Tony I know and love.

              3. Tony|4.25.17 @ 4:27PM|#
                “Liberals look out for the interests of minorities and the downtrodden.”

                You’re a laugh riot, shitbag.

      2. That escalated quickly.

      3. Name a single political idea you have that doesn’t incorporate blaming progressives or some faction of them for some problem

        they are cool on gay-stuff and weed. (*tho not the wider drug-war)

        they pretty much are to blame for poverty, war, terrible schools, over-encarceration, and encroachment on civil liberties. oh, and literally trying to starve the rest of the planet.

        1. You never heard of Huckabee, Santorum and Paul on civil liberties?

          1. No one here argues that there aren’t pieces of shit on both sides of the aisle. Well, no one sane anyways.

            1. Your qualifier makes it.

      4. Name a single political idea you have that doesn’t incorporate blaming progressives

        Well, shit Tony. You got me. Off the top of my head, I’ve got nothing. Maybe your acolytes should stop using violent (fascist) tactics to shut down speech they don’t like. Perhaps they should engage in civil debate and try to persuade people as opposed to coercing them.

        You blame your fucking stubbed toe on proggies don’t you?

        Hm…*light bulb*

        emotional fuel

        Speaking of unlimited resources, we need to devise a way to harness proggie emotional energy.

        1. Because that’s what all liberals do all the time: find the nearest conservative and sew their mouth shut.

          You gotta stop watching FOX News dude. It can only be good for your health.

          Also, if your politics is largely about fixating on what teenagers do, that’s really sad.

        2. Try getting in touch with Sully and Mike Wazowski.

      5. You stupid hicks blame progressives for everything.

        Why can’t you be fair and balanced, like me?

  19. Hey, if it’s lefty thugs throwing rocks, who cares? Just kids having fun, right Nikolai?

  20. Der Trumpenfuhrer has just slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian wood products.

    Will Reason cover his anti-free trade bullshit?

    1. They’ve been covering it, but you’re too busy welshing on bets to notice.

    2. Nope. reason.com Republicans posing as libertarians have much frivolity to cover.

  21. What kind of sick fuck would ever see speech as a public good? It’s usually a public nuisance, with academic speech often being a display of public obscenity.

  22. You have one group using violence to prevent anybody they disagree with from speaking out of their sense if grievance and persecution, but the people who oppose them are the ones feeling aggrieved and persecuted. The projection is strong.

    1. Yeah Ann Coulter, model of stoicism.

      1. LOL!

        Mickey Rat: Violence was done. Speakers were silenced. People were aggrieved. Projection happened.

        Tony: Yeah Ann Coulter is a harpy bitch!

        1. I didn’t mean to imply that she’s a harpy bitch, but that she’s a whiny cunt. If she’s not all about grievance, no one is.

          Not that she doesn’t have a right to vomit her insane bullshit like any other American.

          1. So you agree that tyrants violently repressing free speech should be publicly punished harshly?

      2. Maybe she s not, but it does not change that the people trying to silence her entire political philosophy is based around valuing greater the rights of who feels most persecuted.

        1. Slight correction:

          the rights of who claims to feel feels most persecuted

        2. The Victim Olympics will go on. With or without you Comrade.

  23. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

    Ah. He is a collectivist that sees freedoms as collective. This is my shocked face :l

    I’ve said before and I’ll say again. There is no such thing as “free-speech” or “hate-speech”. There is only the “freedom of speech” and you either have it, or you don’t.

    1. Ah. He is a collectivist that sees freedoms as collective. This is my shocked face :l

      Next year, when you enter first grade, you’ll start learning how to read.

      There is no such thing as “free-speech” or “hate-speech”.

      Those are polar opposites.

      There is only the “freedom of speech” and you either have it, or you don’t

      In the third grade they teach how to use a dictionary. Synonyms come much later, so you’ll stay vulnerable for a while yet.

      1. Yeah, that Rebel Scum is such a dipshit, amirite?

        The free speech is the opposite of da hate speech. So, if you’re using hate speech, you’re the opposite of free speech, which makes you censorship. So, hate speech is censorship. And we’re protected from censorship by the first amendment. So, the first amendment protects us from hate speech. So, SHUT THE DAMN FUCKERS DOWN! SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP, HATEFUL8!

        God, Rebel Scum, you are such an EEEDEIOT! Learn to read or something, you libertard scum.

      2. Michael Hihn|4.25.17 @ 6:51PM|#
        “Next year, when you enter first grade, you’ll start learning how to read.”

        Shitbag, I know you’ve been through the first grade (several times), but you’re never learned to read.
        Fuck off.

          1. Michael Hihn|4.26.17 @ 1:07AM|#
            ((pity))

            ^ Stupid.

      3. Mr Hihn, how many thesauri state that ‘free’ is the opposite of ‘hate’?

        Let’s find out–

        Rogets–

        Antonyms for ‘free’
        barred
        bound
        busy
        confined
        costly
        enslaved
        expensive
        high-priced
        hindered
        limited
        mean
        niggardly
        occupied
        prevented
        priced
        restrained
        scheduled
        suppressed
        tied-up
        tight-fisted

        The FreeThesaurus

        Antonyms for ‘free’

        secured
        bound
        restricted
        dependent
        confined
        restrained
        captive
        incarcerated
        fettered
        immured

        Merriam-Webster

        Antonyms for ‘free’

        dependent
        nonautonomous
        non-self-governing
        subject
        unfree

        I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that ‘hate’ is not the opposite of ‘free’.

        So, that’s gotta be quite a story, yes? How you never made it to third grade?

        1. Now check the opposite of “free speech”

          1. Goober says “scheduled speech” is the opposite of “hate speech,” as he punishes me by committing suicide.

            1. Asshole shows up again.
              Fuck off.

              1. Did I trigger you, snowflake? Violate your safe zone? Show us MOAR raging hatred!!!

  24. Who gets to decide when their humanity has been invalidated?

    If we start restricting free speech rights on the grounds that someone feels invalidated, a whole bunch of people will suddenly discover that they are feeling very invalidated, whenever it is politically convenient.

  25. Some of this is right wing bloviating. But much of it should be legitimately concerning to liberals who value free speech.

    TO BE SURE!

    1. As soon as we can find some.

  26. “emotional fuel is grievance and persecution,”

    Pretty positive the Left has this market cornered

  27. “You’d think liberal arts undergrads had the nuclear codes,” Hayes tweeted Tuesday night.

    Hasn’t it been liberal arts undergrads and professors themselves espousing “The pen is mightier than the sword.” and “Language is a weapon of politicians, but language is a weapon in much of human affairs.” pretty much since the invention of liberal arts undergrads?

  28. This view is wrong and dangerous. Free speech isn’t a public good: it’s an individual right.

    Not only that but it’s both fundamental to and derived from due process rights like innocent until proven guilty, facing one’s accusers, being informed/aware of crimes, etc. and can be directly construed to all other manner of protections in pretty much the entirety of the BOR.

  29. The left’s plan has long been to control every sacred cow institution in this country so that they will be free to instruct the rest of us on how to live and who to give our wealth to. Schools all over the country have been under their control for ages. They own the cities. They’ll be less critical of christianity when they finish taking over our churches. They might have to crack a few heads to get what they want, but they’re not predators per se. They’re parasites.

  30. Trivia note:

    The libertarian movement evolved from the student protests which began in the fall of 1960. Originally they had nothing to do with VietNam or Civil Rights, which picked up an existing movement. It was 100% anti-authority, against the practice of school adminsitrators, en loco parentis, the notion that they were obliged to act as parents to the late teens — and even full-time students, married with children, in their mid-20s. Ironic (an understatement) that campuses are now the home of anti-free-speech.

    And it’s not just librul snowlflakes. In Reason’s commentariat, libertarian snowflakes also shout down any views they don’t like. We now have SJWs on both the right and left, each convinced the opposing tribe is bat-shit crazy, and both of them correct.

    So Left Minus Right Still Equals Zero. And there will always be those who seek to impose their own values on others …. self-righteous zealots.

    1. Michael Hihn: “In Reason’s commentariat, libertarian snowflakes also shout down any views they don’t like.”

      WHO in the HELL would SHOUT DOWN any VIEW that THEY DON’T LIKE?

      I’ll tell you who: some god damned SJW snowflake assholes, that’s who.

      God, I’m surrounded by retards! Dipshits everywhere!

      I mean, God: shouting down views you don’t like. Who fucking does that?

      Tyrants and Drumpfs, that’s who.

      1. I had not appreciated your gift for outrageous satire!

    2. If you get shouted down in a comments section you just as much a snowflake as these kids on campuses who protest free speech.

      1. Being a victim is the same as being the attacker … depending if they’re on my own tribe. Whichever ones are NOT in my tribe are ALWAYS wrong. Because gooberism.

        1. You’re a bloody idiot.

  31. Not liberals, you mean snowflakes, which are a subset of liberals. I know plenty liberals that are open to listening to opposing opinions.

    1. Amen.

      As a grassroots activist for decades, I met very few liberals who were COMMITTED to a welfare state — once I show them that fiscal conservatiesd have no clue how well private welfare worked (even dumber today, as proven by “repeal don’t replace.”) Mostly, they want to make sure nobody gets left behind, and they see nobody else defending that value except wackos..

      Just as a likely majority of Christian Conservatives support Separation of Church and State … because virtually all denominations were persecuted at some point, we know that many colonists came here to escape persecution, and the (un)Holy Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities until roughly our Civil War. Nobody is defending their values, except (also) wackos who add oppression on top of the voluntary good stuff.

      In the rank and file, across the board. a large majority has literally nobody speaking to their core values which — for over 60% — are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant …. but “fuck gummint” speaks for maybe 3% of the population. The libertarian eatablishment has become part of the Political Class, probably from competing for donors. Time to learn Chinese?

    2. Devastator|4.25.17 @ 8:18PM|#
      “Not liberals, you mean snowflakes, which are a subset of liberals. I know plenty liberals that are open to listening to opposing opinions”

      And, living in SF, I’m well familiar with tons who aren’t.

    3. Yeah and at one time we had a lot of passenger pigeons. The count of liberals who are tolerant of other people’s basic human rights are on a similar population trajectory.

      1. The count of liberals who are tolerant of other people’s basic human rights are on a similar population trajectory.

        Same collapse as conservatives.

        1. Similar direction slower trajectory.

          1. Doesn’t matter when they’re both near rock bottom.

      2. Maybe you’re scaring all the reasonable liberals off with your rudeness?

        1. (That was for rudehost)

  32. Funny, people getting offended does not stop the LBGT parade which includes nudity and sexual signs. It didn’t stop the p*y hats and vagina costumes at the women’s march. It doesn’t stop feminists from calling all men rapists. Oh….only certain people getting offended counts? I see.

  33. They are right, Baer argues, to regard offensive speech as an invalidation of their own humanity, and as such, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse:

    It’s pretty pathetic if you have to rely on the words of others for validation of your own humanity.

  34. X “isn’t a public good: it’s an individual right” – this is the basis of the argument about most social issues. Do we see individuals who come together to do something, or do we see a society that has all these little bits that need to be controlled.

  35. “Is the right’s obsession with the campus culture wars partly explained by the conservative media’s continued interest in feeding an outrage-hungry base? Of course.”

    Ahh classic Robby.

  36. At the same time, it’s wrong to say that this fixation on the current state of higher education in America is unwarranted.

    Not as wrong as to make that accusation of Chris Hayes who said that he was amazed that it enrages cons so much not that it enrages them at all.

    Nice job, Robby.

    But back to nuclear codes. The sheep enraged by this better worry about the nucular codes too

  37. It seems the more educated some become the less they understand about the basics of being American.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.